The “unrivaled” Hillary Clinton with rivals Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley. (image: CNN)
A New York Times article by Patrick Healy and Trip Gabriel (10/23/15), on how the Republican presidential nominee has not yet been determined more than three months before the first voter weighs in, provided this piece of context as its second paragraph:
With Hillary Rodham Clinton emerging as the unrivaled leader in the Democratic contest, the unruly Republican presidential field suddenly seemed to lack a center of political gravity on Friday, leaving party strategists and voters to fear a long nomination fight that could end with a damaged standard-bearer facing a more unified left.
Hmm. The “unrivaled leader” leads her closest rival, Bernie Sanders, by 7 percentage points in an average of recent polls in the first caucus state, Iowa. In the first primary state, New Hampshire, she trails Sanders by 2 points; it’s been two months since she had a clear lead over him there. (In an accompanying graphic, the Times ranks Clinton as No. 1 in New Hampshire polls—based on a different polling average that has her ahead by 0.2 percentage points.)
Rather than “emerging” as a leader with no rivals, Clinton’s aura of inevitability has faded as Sanders has shown surprising strength in polling, fundraising and ability to attract crowds. Rather than signifying a “unified left,” the race for the 2016 Democratic nomination has revealed deep divides between the party’s grassroots and corporate wings.
There are at least four other significant declared candidates in the Democratic race: former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb, former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee and public interest attorney Lawrence Lessig. The article implicitly dismisses them as rivals for the nomination months before the actual nominating contest begins.
The New York Times, which strongly identifies with that corporate wing, would like its assertion that the 2016 Democratic primary season is over before it begins to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Democracy would be much better served if the Times were to allow voters to determine who the Democratic Party’s next presidential nominee will be.
ACTION:
Please ask New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan to address the Times‘ misleading claim that Hillary Clinton has no rival in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.
CONTACT:
New York Times
Public Editor Margaret Sullivan
email: public@nytimes.com
Twitter: @Sulliview
You can leave a copy of your message to the New York Times here.
Remember that respectful communication is the most effective.
Jim Naureckas is the editor of FAIR.org.
Correction: A previous version of this alert misstated the number of declared major candidates.
The link that says: “You can leave a copy of your message to the New York Times here.” links to a completely different article, so I’ll leave a copy of my message to the NYT here instead.
Subject: Hillary Clinton is not the unrivaled leader in the Dem primary race
My subject line says it. Hillary Clinton is not the unrivaled leader in the Democratic primary race.
You do not serve justice, democracy, journalistic ethics, or even short-term gain by asserting a demonstrably false wishful conclusion. Hillary may very well end up being the Democratic candidate, but if so, she needs to earn it; you do her no favors by handing it to her on a silver platter.
Please try being honest in your reporting. If you don’t, who will?
Best,
Peter Langston
Seattle, WA
The New York Times is nothing more than a house organ, a publication that extols the source of its funding whenever and however possible. It’s lost whatever patina of American Institution long ago and simply serves the empire and its corporate owners.
Even the Stars and Stripes had credibility to us GIs back in the 60’s and it operated under the auspices of the DOD and the Pentagon–the NYT, much as Jeff Bezos’s Washington Post, remains in business because they serve the transnational corporate ruling class. If you doubt that, just ask Carlos Slim.
“The Gray Lady” my ass.
Gee, quel shock, the NYTimes being snotty and belittling about Bernie Sanders, must be a day ending in the letter Y.
And Salon and the Guardian too. You can bet the Nation and the Atlantic will publish similar “reporting” this week too.
I think we can expect Corporate Media to keep insisting that we accept Hillary as president. She is ‘their’ choice. If Hillary becomes president it will be because our democracy is completely a farce. If the people DO have any say in the matter I expect Bernie Sanders will win the nomination.
Hillary is a figurehead of the Oligarchy that would prefer to keep the power it currently has. The People along with Bernie Sanders are engaged in a political revolution that will continue LONG after the coming election. We’ll see if we have a real election or not.
Hillary has lied about so many things. Recently she said she would go after dark money while dark money pours into one of her Super Pacs AND the Clintons somehow failed to disclose ten millions dollars in foreign donors from the Clinton Foundation. She said that Big Pharma is her enemy while she is the top recipients of Big Pharma money. That is just a couple of examples of numerous hypocrisies & lies.
Based on her behavior Hillary Clinton believes the American People are stupid. She believes we will not hold her accountable, we will just believe whatever she says and not check the facts.
Putting Hillary and Bill back in the white house is a terrible idea for our country.
We look to the NYTimes to be impartial and accurate in reporting. Editorial comments should reflect editorial opinion, based on facts. We are glad there is such a newspaper. We count on you to maintain a high standard of integrity.
I don’t pay attention to anything the NY Times has to say since they aided
Bush and Cheney in lying us into the Iraq war.
Helen Anderson:
Perhaps not you, and Iraq is a very good reason.
But other parties do treat what the Times claims as fact: CBS, ABC, NBC, NPR, even Fox mostly.
The point? Please do complain to the Times’ public editor, even if you know to ignore their claims.
The were desperately trying to sell Jeb Bush as a still valid candidate for the republican nomination–via interviewing Barbara and George.
Peter Langston betrays his hate driven folly, by saying, that Hillary has to earn her status as the “unrivaled leader.” If it were only her appearance before the Benghazi committee. that forced this fine lady, through 11 hours of a biased inquisition, she will have proven her strength and determination. May I suggest, that if anyone has to “earn” it, it’s Sanders. What inquisitions has he been through? Hillary has endured every kind of attack imaginable, through a life fraught at every turn with hateful, spiteful, interminable, mindless cruelties. If Sanders had faced the Benghazi hit squad, he’d have collapsed after 2, maybe 3 hours. What does Langston mean when he speaks of Hillary having the nomination “handed to her on a silver platter.” What silver platter? What “favors” is Hillary enjoying, when she is seen as having the nomination tied up, by someone at the NYT? What crybabies! The favors, the silver platter, Hillary having to “earn It,” these are all fictions in the frenzied mind of Langston.
RE: “…Hillary Clinton emerging as unrivaled leader…” Stating blatant lies as fact will fool some of the people, but will it be enough to get Hillary Clinton elected? I don’t think so. We (the people) just don’t take the NYT seriously, at least not as a news publication.
Reality, though slow to get attention, is gradually coming to be seen on this very chatlist. At this point, we have roughly 8 posts, 7 of which, see Sanders as the candidate that is slighted, and every one of them is crying over the mistreatment Sanders is getting from news media, etc. Do the Sanders forces see something odd about this 7 to 1 ratio? Let me suggest, that if this site received another 100 posts, this 7 to 1 ration would continue. It’s not Sanders that is being mistreated, it’s Hillary, which is what a 7 to 1 ratio tells me. The NYT, continues to deliver its worst and most hateful treatment for Hillary, not Sanders. Sanders is usually ignored by media, where Hillary would be delighted if media ignored her and allowed the people to make up their own minds. Chatlists, such as this one, reveal a disturbing contest between Sanders and Hillary, of approximately 10 to 1, where 10 were supporting Sanders, and 1 supported Hillary. I invite anyone here to check list after list, and see if my numbers are substantially off. If this alone, doesn’t make you aware of the nonsense of the Sanders claim, that he is being mistreated, nothing will. Hillary is “being” mistreated, and Sanders is “claiming” mistreatment. Have you noticed the hateful language being used to talk about Hillary, specifically by the Sanders crowd. Can someone tell me why Sanders has not stopped this filth against Hillary. Is he benefiting from this talk? Everyone knows, that you don’t have to do the negative talk, if you have underlings that are doing it for you.
@john polifronio:
“filth”?
You keep telling yourself that.
Regarding Libya, Secretary Clinton has a lot to answer for about her part in starting that still on going civil war.
I am tired of hearing about Hillary from Corporate Media and DNC. She isn’t any better then George Bush, she went to war with Libya and didn’t have plan about the aftermath of the destruction of a country. I do not trust her she is a War Hawk along with her friend Kissinger. She will flip flop on her first day in office if elected. So I really think you need to focus on all the candidates that are in the race or DNC maybe surprised when people leave because of the propaganda to your articles and DNC try shoving at us
The Black, Muslim, Communist, Nazi Kenyan-born guy with the middle name Hussein President? … “Not Electable” … Oops … ELECTED … TWICE …
The Jewish, Socialist, loud-talking, not-square-jawed and he doesn’t look like a “real President”, uncombed hair, “old” man elected President? …
… You bet your sweet ass …
OMG Hillary does not appear ‘presidential’ just because she lived through a stupid hearing people. That is ridiculous. ALSO actual studies have been done re Bernie Sanders and media coverage & they showed he was slighted… it wasn’t Bernie Supporters imagination.
AND Hillary has so much lying and hypocrisy building up the only reason she is being held up as the ‘unrivaled’ candidate is because BIG MONEY & ESTABLISHMENT IS PROPPING HER UP. They Chose Hillary. We don’t need more Oligarchy, we need a leader like Bernie Sanders to help us shift this country to one that represents ‘ALL’ of US, instead of a Wealthy Few!
I beg to differ regarding Hillary’s position
Dear Margaret Sullivan,
What happened to the running mates of Hillary? Bernie Sanders was and is a viable option to stand as the democratic presidential nominee. What goes beyond belief is the fact that Hillary’s flip-flopping doesn’t seem to affect those who are blinded by her corporate ties. Bernie is clearly the person to bring the middle class back to life. Please recind your “unrivaled” statement.
Thank you for your attention.
Nancy Chismar NJ USA
My note to the NYT …
I have been disappointed by the Times’ coverage of Hillary versus her rivals. While some of her rivals poll close to her or even higher than her in some states, the NYT has articles like the one by PATRICK HEALY and TRIP GABRIEL on OCT. 23, 2015 making remarks like:
“With Hillary Rodham Clinton emerging as the unrivaled leader in the Democratic contest …”
While I expect much of the media to cheer on their candidate, I would hope the NYT would try to be more objective and try not to artificially push the narrative in Clinton’s direction.
Republicans are the rich ruling class, the 25% highest achievers in society who own three-fourths of the wealth, a fact that most everyone knows only too well. But, where the political confusion comes in is that most have no idea as to who the Democrats are, with the mainstream public fooled into thinking that everyone not a Republican has to be a Democrat. A confusion that would quickly end if people would except the fact that the half of voters who never go to the poles, surely they are the impoverished lower half of society, the laboring-class and mainly because they have no wealth to protect.
So, Republicans and Democrats each have a forth of society, together they are the upper half and that is why they own all of the wealth, why the lower half is kept enslaved and powerless by a bare-bones minimum wage and why our wars of plunder are designed to maximize the wealth of such a voting majority.
And so, the swing voters who end up deciding the outcome of elections, they be those who are not quite smart enough to be rich and are always trying to figure out which candidate is the most intelligent and best able to make them rich.
And where corporate owned mainstream media comes in is the way they always make out the politician that the rich want to win as the one most intelligent. Of course the paid actor politicians must play their part, for if you recall, when John McCain and Sarah pretended to run for the white House, it was as if the two genius types had taken a stupid pill.
Really New York Times? Hilary Clinton isn’t the unrivaled leader. Where is you journalistic ethics when you are dishonest?
hello, earth to new york times editors, hillary barely has a slight lead over sanders and that depends on which polls you read on line or other sources have different versions of the truth, are you trying to influence a public movement because you are scared of something really shifting in this country or because you are so very self assured of her ?
Dear Editor Sullivan,
I am writing to tell you of my concern about a statement in your publication that states: “With Hillary Rodham Clinton emerging as the unrivaled leader in the Democratic contest . . .”
This is clearly not a fact, but an opinion on the part of the writer, and tarnishes the reputation for journalistic objectivity that the New York Times should cherish.
I could cite the polls, fund-raising information, and numbers of voters who have attended rallies that would dispute this, but I’m sure you have access to them as well.
Please make a correction in your paper about this deceptive statement.
Thank you.
Susan Broadhead
Subject: Hillary Clinton is not the unrivaled leader in the Dem primary race.
I just want to say that I find that this is the THIRD time this News Paper has published misleading articles about the 2016 Presidential primary. If you have ANY journalistic integrity, you should print a retraction. Your publishing of these misleading articles undermines the political process and undermines the voters in this country. After following the NY times over the past six months, it is very clear to me that the NY Times is working for the Clinton Campaign, (which in my opinion) where someone should pay a lofty fine and someone should be stripped of their credentials.
How can we expect the NYT to present unbiased coverage of the Democratic primary season? Starting with their advertisers, it’s a who’s who of oligarchic America: Blackrock iShares (Wall Street Behemoth), Citi (Wall Street behemoth), Kyocera (multinational corporation), Deloitte (multinational financial services corporation), etc…
The week after the first Democratic debate, 3 staff columnists (Blow, Bruni and Collins) all but coronated Hillary, and used such adjectives as “irascible'” hunched,” and “cranky” to describe Bernie. The night of the debate, and before the electorate had a chance to make up their own minds, all of the staff reporters writing about it pronounced Hillary the winner.
Before a vote was ever cast and from the moment she announced her candidacy, the NYT has been calling Hillary the prohibitive frontrunner. What does this say about our democracy? That it is rigged!
Please stop publishing misleading articles that declare Hillary as the unrivalled candidate of the Democratic party. This factually untrue and is misleading the public to believing her candidacy to be a done deal. Bernie Sanders is a viable contented as he leads in the polls in NH and not far behind in Iowa. His popularity is gaining quickly on Clinton. Please stop the bias coverage of the democratic race.
Ms. Sullivan,
Isn’t it a bit early to declare a winner in the Democratic presidential nominee contest? The first caucus is still months away, there’s no clear leader in the two earliest events where voters actually vote, there are at least two well-funded candidates and those two candidates have distinctly different bases of support with widely divergent agendas.
This has apparently escaped the notice of Patrick Healy and Trip Gabriel (10/23/15):
“With Hillary Rodham Clinton emerging as the unrivaled leader in the Democratic contest, the unruly Republican presidential field suddenly seemed to lack a center of political gravity on Friday, leaving party strategists and voters to fear a long nomination fight that could end with a damaged standard-bearer facing a more unified left.”
Apparently the Times is guiding the news rather than reporting it.
Ms Sullivan please address Times’ misleading claim that Hillary Clinton has no rival in race for the Democratic pres nomination.
Unrivaled Leader of the Democratic primary race???? How did you come up with that one? Since when has 2-7 percentage points decided a VERY EARLY RACE? Journalism is dead.
Clinton is not unrivaled or a leader until the votes start coming in and if and when she is nominated. Until then democracy would be much better served if the Times were to allow voters to determine who the Democratic Party’s next presidential nominee will be.
New York Times
Public Editor Margaret Sullivan
email: public@nytimes.com
Attention: Margaret Sullivan
I live in Bellingham, Washington, Whatcom County, Washington State. I do not see any Clinton bumper stickers or signs around here; but, I DO see Bernie signs starting to emerge.
Killery is a corporatist and a militarist – a liar and a crook. The poor murdered, maimed, orphaned and displaced children of the world have had enough of that.
I NEVER go to you for actual news. I learned long ago that ALL of the outlets are propaganda machines spewing out lies and distortions for ill-gotten gains.
I read “Common Dreams,’ FAIR, and Center for Media and Democracy in order to obtain actual news and I tell others to do the same.
Shame on you. Your activities are anti-American. I imagine you are laughing all the way to the bank. How foolish. Too bad.
Thelma Follett
An informed American and a voter of over forty years
NYT, I want to thank you for identifying yourself as Corporate Media. Gone are the days when we counted on media to remain neutral. Do you honestly think that the people are still so dumb as to allow you to brainwash us into believing your propoganda? We no longer need an outside source telling us what to think and how to act. We are the revolution against the Machine – not the Borg. Join us or join Hillary and see where that takes you!
When have I read these exact words before? 2007 when Hillary ran against Obama.
Some people never learn. WE DO NOT WANT HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT. Let the people who paid for her have her. American people want a leader who will actually represent American people and that leader is Bernie.
Travel back 8 years to this day and you will find the exact same articles written by the exact same people saying the exact same things about Hillary. Substitute Bernie for Obama and the only difference you will find between now and then is that t Bernie is doing a hell of a lot better than Obama was this time 8 years ago.
I find it hard believe that you are even saying that Clinton is unrivaled. Are you paying attention to the numbers that Sanders is drawing at his rallies? Have you been bought & payed for to report this obvious bias towards Clinton? You’ve become as bad as FOX news!
You’ve got to be kidding!
How can you possibly call Hillary Clinton
the unrivaled leader for the Democratic
nomination when she is either barely leading,
or actually losing to Bernie Sanders in the polls?
I’m a long-time NYT reader… and think you guys
do a great job in general… but you really dropped
the ball on this one!
Sincerely,
Mick Kalber
As another commenter said, the leave-a-comment link is broken. Malfunctioning. Please fix it. Such glitches diminish user engagement — the last thing you need.
I wrote this to Margaret Sullivan:
NYT article 10/23/15: “With Hillary Rodham Clinton emerging as the unrivaled leader in the Democratic contest…”
Sanders makes headlines for his strong showings in polls (recent skewed Monmouth Iowa poll notwithstanding, which the Times itself exposed as essentially bunk), funds raised and of course enormous crowds.
Statements like that 10/23 arrant nonsense quoted above, airily dismissing on-the-ground reality, don’t belong in the Times.
You owe Sanders and Times readers a *prominent* apology — not buried at the bottom of page 20.
Sanders is more inevitable as leader if there is even any inevitability at all:
Please let the “we the people” be the ones who speak, not your narrow clique of opinionators at the Times.
A lot more of us want Bernie than you may realize. Even O’Malley gets a lot of approval.
Dear Ms. Sullivan,
In Patrick Healy and Trip Gabriel’s article Bush Cuts Costs, Carson Eclipses Trump in Iowa and G.O.P. Frets, Politics, 10/23/15, the authors say that Hilary Clinton is “emerging as the unrivaled leader in the Democratic contest”.
Unrivaled?
At best, this statement should be in the Opinion section. At worst, it is patently false and biased reporting. Either way it is very poor, irresponsible journalism. The media may be very powerful, but just because they “say so”, does not make it so! They cannot will a president into winning an election by pretending she won the Democratic debates and pretending she is “unrivaled”. It is hard to see this kind of reporting as anything but purely wishful thinking on the part of the New York Times.
It may have been that, many months ago, this kind of wishful thinking was coming from the Bernie camp. But now against all odds he is only points behind Hillary in Iowa and, according to many polls, ahead of Hillary in New Hampshire. This is fact and reality. How can the authors call that “unrivaled”? Furthermore, how can facts like these not be a very big story? No other “fringe” candidate in recent memory has even broken double digits, let alone rivaled the heir to the throne. But Bernie has done just that.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Sarah Reynolds
(A Vermonter now living in New York City.)
Dear Ms. Sullivan,
In Patrick Healy and Trip Gabriel’s article Bush Cuts Costs, Carson Eclipses Trump in Iowa and G.O.P. Frets, Politics, 10/23/15, the authors say that Hilary Clinton is “emerging as the unrivaled leader in the Democratic contest”.
Unrivaled?
At best, this statement should be in the Opinion section. At worst, it is patently false and biased reporting. Either way it is very poor, irresponsible journalism. The media may be very powerful, but just because they “say so”, does not make it so! They cannot will a president into winning an election by pretending she won the Democratic debates and pretending she is “unrivaled”. It is hard to see this kind of reporting as anything but purely wishful thinking on the part of the New York Times.
It may have been that, many months ago, this kind of wishful thinking was coming from the Bernie camp. But now against all odds he is only points behind Hillary in Iowa and, according to many polls, ahead of Hillary in New Hampshire. This is fact and reality. How can the authors call that “unrivaled”? Furthermore, how can facts like these not be a very big story? No other “fringe” candidate in recent memory has even broken double digits, let alone rivaled the heir to the throne. But Bernie has done just that.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Sarah
(A Vermonter now living in New York City.)
I was unaware when the New York Times had crossed over into the Fox News arena of reporting non-news or fabricated news or just having a lack of balance. I wonder if they worried to fact check Mrs Clinton when she lied on National TV last Friday while being interviewed by Ms Maddow saying that that the vote for DOMA was a way to stop the surge of a constitutional amendment. It was a delusional statement where she talked herself into believing that she could make it reality by saying it, because she was included in those talks. It reminded me of Brian Williams. Here New York Times, I am giving you a story. Go do some research and report on it. Go do some more research on other lies that she has said over the years which I am sure are numerous. This is why it is unfortunate that you post such ridiculous stories about the unrivaled leaders. Do some homework and become a real newspaper and not the equivalent of the British Sun, which quite frankly is a shame… Fix yourself NYTimes or consider yourself like AOL irrelevant.
Please consider unbiased reporting. Hillary is certainly rivaled! It is probably good to retract that statement. Your reporting of this election cycle has been so unbalanced that by the end you will have lost the trust of many of your readers. In a time when we have so many news choices, is that really a great idea?
Your agenda is showing!
Dear Ms. Sullivan,
Please pass onto the management at the NYT that the sort of truth manipulation performed Oct. 23 by reporters Patrick Healy and Trip Gabriel in the second paragraph of their article when they referred to Hillary Clinton as the “unrivaled leader” among the Democratic Party presidential candidates is simply not acceptable to honest journalists and a grave disservice to the general public.
Again and again we have seen this sort of contemptible behavior by the NYT in deliberately playing down the obviously very strong popularity of Bernie Sanders as witness his poll standings, the turnouts he generates and the amount of money he has been able to raise — not from billionaires but from ordinary working citizens. By doing so, the NYT erodes its reputation as the nation’s primary newspaper of record and identifies to its great shame with the corporate wing of the Democratic Party.
Millions of bonafide liberal voters, long disgusted with a party which ever since before the days of Bill Clinton has done very little to distinguish itself from the GOP, have been rejuvenated in spirit by the willingness of Mr. Sanders to subject himself to the degrading experience of running as the party’s standard bearer.
Unless the NYT changes course and declines to serve further as a sort of pathetic “Pravda” on behalf of the Wall Street oligarchy represented by such a clearly reactionary tool as Mrs. Clinton, we will have little choice but to remember and consequently deplore the “Gray Lady” as having no more credibility than a common streetwalker.
Peter Taber
Retired newspaperman
Searsport, Maine
what do you mean unrivaled?; she is only few points, in some polls ,ahead of Sen. Sanders; please stop spreading this type disinformation.
Thank you for being mindful.
Dear Mr. Baquet,
Accurate and factual reporting is paramount for American awareness, particularly as related to the US Presidential election. Your paper is showing party and candidate bias by announcing Mrs. Hillary Clinton as the lead candidate for the Democratic Party. This is not so. As a matter of fact, a number of national and private media polls have shown that the lead is marginal at best and equally divided at worst.
This means that your paper is intentionally trying to sway the American people to vote for the candidate of your choice. Please stop, this is a gross abuse of journalism and highly unethical.
Based upon exactly what evidence does the New York Times claim in its Oct. 23rd article by Patrick Healy and Trip Gabriel that Hillary Clinton is the “unrivaled” leader in the Democratic presidential campaign? Perhaps the N.Y.T. has some information that they are hiding from the rest of us, but Bernie Sanders is doing very well indeed in your polls. So where, exactly, are you drawing the data from which you are making such rash and hasty conclusions?
Never ever declare a truth when it is still a falsehood. Her Ladyship Hillary is still a wanna be. And it is a long way to next November.
I have seen the crowds with Bernie with the gleam and dream in their eyes and the truth in their head. You see Bernie is telling the truth as he promised and has NOT trashed anyone. That is character. I will stick with a candidate that knows and tells the truth.
Your claim that Hillary Clinton has “no rival” is contrary to objective reality, i.e. a LIE.
Bernie Sanders has unprecedented support by CITIZENS, leads Hillary in New Hampshire, and is close in Iowa.
This is a transparent attempt to create a self-fulfilling prophecy. And you wonder why the New York Times’ credibility and revenue are dropping.
Please correct this falsehood.
Sincerely,
Alan N. Balkany
Wow, 47 replies, and not 1 expressing support for Hillary. Odd. Since I have no doubt that the NYT is a Clinton-hating machine, I also have no doubt that the Times making this claim, which is simply red meat for these republicans, to immediately jump on Hillary as if she’s the devil, and excoriate her, was intentionally put forward to consolidate the unity of the Times with the enemies of Hillary Clinton. But tell me, what the hell did Hillary have to do with claims made for her, by someone at the Times? Nothing. But, this doesn’t stop the wild-ass republicans from losing their minds. They’ve jumped here, with incredible ferocity to tear Hillary down, and burn her at the stake. I have a couple of questions for these republicans. 1. Why don’t republicans ever “support” their own candidates? 2. Why, when you deliver these adolescent attacks against Hillary, don’t you ever admit that you’re republicans?
BTW. would FAIR have been, so much, up in arms, if the same claim had been made for Sanders, suggesting that he was the unrivaled leader in a the Dem race. If you’re so doubtful that polls showing Hillary far ahead of Sanders, are accurate, why aren’t you equally doubtful, that polls showing Sanders beating republican candidates by small margins more than Hillary, are accurate?
This is the email I sent to the NYT’s Public Editor: PLEASE, the NYT needs to stop treating Hillary Clinton as if she has no competition, particularly with Bernie Sanders close in Iowa and ahead in New Hampshire. It looks more and more that, consciously or not, the paper is trying to make happen what it wants to happen – have Clinton be the nominee. She may end up being the nominee, but let the voters decide that, without the NYT’s encouragement or influence, at least off of the editorial pages.
What is with the misleading statement that:
“With Hillary Rodham Clinton emerging as the unrivaled leader in the Democratic contest, the unruly Republican presidential field suddenly seemed to lack a center of political gravity on Friday, leaving party strategists and voters to fear a long nomination fight that could end with a damaged standard-bearer facing a more unified left.”
Senator Sanders is still very viable.
Regards,
John Seibert
To the Editor of NYT:
Since when does the New York Times select the candidates for president? I strongly reject the premature determination that Clinton is “emerging as unrivaled leader” in the Democratic race (Healy & Gabriel, 10/23/15). From its comfortable pocket in the corporatocracy, the NYT might want to dismiss Sanders and annoint Clinton, but this declaration months before any caucus or primary has taken place is arrogant in the extreme.
Bernie Sanders is a dynamic, truthful leader, with experience, integrity and vision. He is running an effective and principled campaign that is mobilizing people from all demographics. Engaged voters won’t hop on Hillary Clinton’s bandwagon just because she’s declared the unrivaled leader in the pages of the New York Times. She is a hotly rivaled leader.
Clarice Hearne
The NY Times should report reality rather than desires when it comes to the Democratic primaries. Hillary Clinton hasn’t won yet, even thought the Times is ready to crown her.
For Margaret Sullivan, Public Editor, New York Times
As a regular NYT reader for more than fifty years, I must express, not for the first time, great disappointment with your recent article about Mrs. Clinton´s position in the Democrat primary contest. In my view, you expose, blatantly, your willingness to manipulate your readership, by writing that Mrs. Clinton has emerged as the unrivaled candidate for the Democrats. That statement is a false one. I´m tiring of reading false statements in the NYT. Scott Griffith.
how about we vote , before you call it for hillary
What a false headline you wrote – I realize you are wanting to disregard Bernie Sanders, but desire and reality are two different things. A newspaper should write what is fact and that is that Bernie is certainly a rival to Ms. Clinton.
The New York Times, America’s establishment newspaper gives out free spin for the establishment Democrats favorite politician. It’s a bit disingenuous and it should be classified as a paid advertisement. Bernie was aware of this issues from the beginning, and it is to his credit that he has done very well with the people in spite of the odious media bias.
The NYT, the establishment newspaper, mirrors the spin of establishment Democrats. Bernie has done extremely well with the people in spite of all the pro-Hillary spin in the corporate media. It is clear from seeing the results of all polls in both major parties. The people want real change, and a real progressive.
Spin from the establishment newspaper for the establishment candidate. What else can we expect from the corporate media that places profits over honesty in reporting?
The wish of the NYT to have Hillary be the “unrivaled leader” of the Democratic party does not make it so. The American Public has something to say about that.
Please stop assuming that we will not notice your blatant attempt to choose a side by printing inaccuracies. It’s embarrassing.
How can you be so out of touch with what is happening in the USA. How can anyone now believe anything that you put forth as information.
Margaret Sullivan,
Please address the misleading statement that was published in the NYT (10/23/15) that Hillary Clinton is the “unrivaled leader” in the Democratic presidential contest. Bernie Sanders is also doing quite well. Of course the NYT identifies with the corporate wing of the Democratic party and therefore, it seems easy for the paper to sway the public’s view and its determined desire to have Clinton as the nominee.
Johanna Cummings
If NYT or any other newspaper or media outlet chooses to endorse a candidate, it is their right to do so. Said endorsements should properly be presented as editorial opinion. To anoint any candidate as unrivaled” more than 12months in advance of the election, when there are clearly other qualified, serious candidates also challenging for the position, serves to unduly influence the opinion of prospective voters and thereby inadvertently, if not intentionally, affect the outcome of the election. NYT knows better and has a responsibility to fairly and accurately present information to its readers, many of whom are among the outing public.
Paul Fior
Dogsafoot@gmail.com
Sent from my iPad
Hi!
Thanks, now I don’t have to VOTE. What a dumb thing to do when we are trying to listen to all the candidates. As my son says the new media picks our elections. Feel the BERN.
Ummm excuse me but Hillary is certainly NOT the unrivaled leader in the democratic race! How awful to post such an irresponsible comment. Is the NYT becoming fox lite?
Billary Clinton “is inevitable.”
Horse pucky!
I’m voting for Sen. Bernie Sanders!
New York Times
Attn: Public Editor Margaret Sullivan
Please address the Times‘ misleading claim that Hillary Clinton has no rival in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Also, Bernie won the reader’s poll for Time person of the year. However, he was not even listed as a finalist! I believe Time Magazine has met its day as a viable news magazine and needs to shut its doors. I for one will never purchase your magazine again.
Lol…Maybe Bernie might choose her as his shooting vp mate :-)